I propose a few simple changes to the law in the name of safer roads:
- Ban tinted windows and require cops to ticket offenders. Most states regulate the amount of window tint, but 35% transmission (Massachusetts) is quite dark and enforcement is spotty. Eye contact and hand signals are very powerful tools for communication between drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, but tinted windows make this nearly impossible at night. Tijuana banned tinted windows last year for a different reason, but their enforcement has been exemplary: I’ve heard stories of Mexican police requiring violators to scrape their windows clean with a razor blade while they watch.
- Eliminate touch-screen controls in vehicles. Factory-installed navigation systems usually allow input only while parked, but recently I’ve seen cars with touch-screen radio and climate controls. I don’t think I need to explain why this is a bad idea.
- Require that instrument lights illuminate only when the headlights are on. My unscientific opinion is that, here in the city, about 1 in 20 drivers speeds around at night blissfully unaware that their headlights are off. Most of the time I’ve noticed that their dashboards are nonetheless lit. You can’t legally require drivers to pay attention and look out the front window, but you can beat them over the head with clues.
- Stop making road signs that are redundant with proper driving practice. These create visual clutter and undermine the importance of teaching everyone the rules of the road. Examples of such signs seen on my commute include “SLOW” (at a place where everyone speeds up), “LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN,” and “RIGHT TURN ON RED ONLY AFTER COMPLETE STOP.” For more insight on this philosophy, read last summer’s excellent Atlantic Monthly article, “Distracting Miss Daisy.”
Did you get hit again?
No, I’m safe. Just getting in touch with my inner Andy Rooney.
As the chief UK-resident reader of this sphere, I’d like to say that while I agree with some of the points in the Atlantic Monthly article, I don’t buy all of them.
Principally, I object to the author’s extremely limited use of facts to support his case. He trots out a few fatality statistics, but other than that he uses personal anecdote (“I often see…”, “In my experience…” etc). Plus, I don’t think fatality statistics are that informative because the vast majority of auto accidents aren’t fatal, and I think you could argue that the kind of accidents which result from people being confused by stop signs etc (the point of the article) are even less likely than average to be fatal (as opposed, to say drunk driving, or speeding beyond all reasonable limits).
In fact, I am going to guess that whatever nonfatal accident statistics are available don’t support his claim. As an excuse for not quoting any of those numbers he says, “not all minor accidents get reported to the police, in either country, and definitions vary”, which seems like a pretty weak reason to not even discuss the results (unless, as I believe, they don’t support his argument).
Lots of stuff in the British system is better than the US (use of roundabouts instead of stop signs and traffic lights, painting road instructions on the road etc), but lots is incredibly confusing or frustrating. Take two examples:
1. The national speed limit system. This works fine when you have learned to drive here, but is very confusing for foreigners. The speed limit is essentially never posted numerically, but rather dependent on context clues or the meaningless road sign of a white disc with a black slash through it. If you rent (or “hire” as we say) a car here you’d have no clue how fast to drive because you’re never getting numeric hints to help you understand the norms.
2. The “traffic calming” obsession. This involves arbitrarily narrowing roads so only one direction can flow at a time, putting islands in the road, etc. I like the idea in principle, but it far too often forces people to stop for no reason and creates traffic jams where none need exist.